CJI Forwards Inquiry Committee’s Findings on Justice Varma to President, Prime Minister for Further Action

(Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

In a momentous development with serious constitutional implications, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has formally submitted the report of an in-house judicial inquiry committee to the President of India and the Prime Minister. The report pertains to grave allegations concerning Justice Yashwant Varma, a judge of the Allahabad High Court who was previously serving at the Delhi High Court.

The allegations stem from a disturbing incident on March 14, when partially burnt sacks allegedly containing currency notes were discovered in the remnants of a fire-damaged storeroom at Justice Varma’s former official residence in Delhi. The suspicious nature of the discovery triggered concerns within the judiciary and led to the initiation of an internal investigation.

Following a preliminary inquiry led by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Justice D.K. Upadhyaya, which recommended a more detailed examination, the CJI constituted a three-member in-house committee on March 22 to investigate the matter further. The panel comprised Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, and Justice Annu Sivaraman.

The committee’s findings, now forwarded to the President and Prime Minister by the CJI, are understood to contain material serious enough to warrant the initiation of removal proceedings against Justice Varma. In accordance with established judicial protocol, the CJI also enclosed a copy of Justice Varma’s response to the inquiry report, which was submitted on May 6.

This procedural step marks a crucial threshold. Under the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the CJI is obligated to refer an inquiry report to the constitutional authorities—i.e., the President and Prime Minister—if the judge under scrutiny refuses to resign or opt for voluntary retirement despite adverse findings. The judgment clarifies that such a referral indicates that the inquiry committee has concluded there is sufficient evidence of “proved misbehaviour” to justify the initiation of parliamentary proceedings for removal.

The Constitution of India lays down a detailed procedure for the removal of judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. As per Article 217 (for High Court judges) and Article 124 (for Supreme Court judges), a judge may be removed only through a motion adopted by both Houses of Parliament, supported by a special majority—meaning a majority of the total membership of each House, and a two-thirds majority of members present and voting.

If Parliament approves such a motion, the President is empowered to issue an order for the judge’s removal on the grounds of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”

Justice Varma was transferred to the Allahabad High Court shortly after the March 14 incident came to light. The nature and outcome of the ongoing legal and constitutional processes will now depend on how the President and Prime Minister act upon the CJI’s recommendation, and whether Parliament chooses to take up a motion for removal under the rigorous constitutional procedure.

This episode marks one of the rare instances in India’s judicial history where the in-house mechanism—designed to ensure accountability within the higher judiciary—has progressed to the stage of formal communication to the executive for possible removal proceedings.